It’s cold and flu season, and to make matters worse, temperatures across the country are dipping into WTF degrees. (We’ve even had to wear sweaters here in LA.) For many of us, now is the time we reach for vitamin C—whether we feel a little something coming on or to help prevent it from ever taking hold. But that might not be a good idea and it may even be a waste of your money.

It’s cold and flu season, and to make matters worse, temperatures across the country are dipping into WTF degrees. (We’ve even had to wear sweaters here in LA.) For many of us, now is the time we reach for vitamin C—whether we feel a little something coming on or to help prevent it from ever taking hold. But that might not be a good idea and it may even be a waste of your money.

I was just as shocked by that news as you probably are. No vitamin C when sick? But it helps, right? Not so fast, says Consumer Reports.

And according to Marvin M. Lipman, M.D., Consumer Reports’ chief medical adviser, “Nothing, including vitamin C, has ever been shown to shorten the course of a common cold, which usually lasts 7 to 10 days.” It’s like a cruel joke, eh? Mother Nature just wants us to feel shitty and pathetic—probably retribution for how our species has been treating the planet. But I digress.

Not that vitamin C is all that expensive compared to other dietary supplements, it’s actually one of the most affordable supplements, but this astonishing news means you could be wasting your money even if it’s only a few dollars. And, according to Consumer Reports, taking vitamin C after a cold or flu has set in is most likely too late. Megadosing has been a controversial medical practice. Dr. Linus Pauling was known for his excessive vitamin C consumption, which he claimed could cure cancer, among other diseases. But Consumer Reports warns that too much vitamin C just gets excreted by the body though urine. So while you may think you’re doing yourself a favor, you might literally be peeing your money away.

Another risk factor applies to men, who are twice as likely to develop kidney stones if taking vitamin C regularly. “That’s according to an 11-year study of 48,850 Swedish men,” according to Consumer Reports.

There’s another not-so-pleasant risk factor that will make being sick suck way worse: diarrhea. Consumer Reports says that the National Institute of Health advises no more than 2,000 milligrams or risk loose stools and stomach cramping. That sucks when you’re not sick, but add a nasty cold or flu and it’s a recipe for disaster.

Fortunately, the worst days of a cold or flu are only 2-3 days long. Lots of rest and fluids will do you heaps of good in recovering quickly. And if you still want to keep vitamin C in your arsenal, start taking it now, when you’re not sick. According to Consumer Reports, some research has found that taking extra vitamin C on a daily basis can shorten the length of a cold by a day or so.

While fish may offer up some health benefits to pregnant women, a new report from the magazine Consumer Reports says eating tuna while pregnant should be avoided at all costs.

The report comes after the FDA and EPA proposed a minimum weekly level for fish intake back in June, which included recommendations for eating tuna while pregnant. According to the agencies’ proposal, pregnant or breastfeeding women along with those trying to conceive should eat no more than 12 ounces of fish each week, but they should be eating fish for their health and the health of their babies.

But not so, says Consumers Union, Consumer Reports advocacy group. “We’re particularly concerned about canned tuna, which is second only to shrimp as the most commonly eaten seafood in the United States,” Jean Halloran, director of food policy initiatives for Consumers Union told the Washington Post. “We encourage pregnant women to avoid all tuna.”

On its website, the FDA lists the mercury levels found in common fish, but Consumer Reports says the agency may be “underestimating the danger,” of fish like tuna, explains the Post. “When [Consumer Reports] analyzed the FDA’s data, they found 20 percent of the light canned tuna samples tested since 2005 have almost twice as much mercury as what the FDA said is the average amount.”

The risk of damage to a fetus from eating high mercury fish is very real. “The brain undergoes a series of complex developmental stages that need to be completed in the right sequence and at the right time,” Philippe Grandjean, an adjunct professor at the Harvard School of Public Health told Consumer Reports. He says that within just a few hours of consuming mercury-laden fish, the fetus’ brain could become permanently damaged.

Major food companies from Kellogg’s and Campbell’s soup to Whole Foods Market have been sued over “all natural” label claims. Now, Consumer Reports Food Safety and Sustainability Center wants the term, and any variations of it, banned.

Major food companies from Kellogg’s and Campbell’s soup to Whole Foods Market have been sued over “all natural” label claims. Now, Consumer Reports Food Safety and Sustainability Center wants the term, and any variations of it, banned.

According to the organization, nearly 60 percent of consumers look for “all natural” label claims when shopping for food. They also believe that it means there are no artificial ingredients, harmful chemical pesticides or genetically modified organisms in the product. But that’s not the case, says Consumer Reports.

“The reality is that the Food and Drug Administration hasn’t developed a formal definition for the term,” the group said in a statement. “Our findings show consumers expect much more from the ‘natural’ food label,” says Urvashi Rangan, Ph.D., executive director of the Food Safety and Sustainability Center at Consumer Reports. “It’s misleading, confusing, and deceptive.”

Consumers continue to take misleading claims about their food products seriously. Even Whole Foods Market has recently been called out for misuse of the “all natural” label claim. The chain is currently being sued over muffins sold as “natural” when they contained artificial ingredients. PepsiCo’s Naked Juice division recently agreed to a $9 million settlement over the claim on juice and smoothie products that contained artificial and genetically modified ingredients.

“We want to clean up the green noise in the food label marketplace so Americans can get what they want—truthful labels that represent important and better food production systems,” Rangan says. “Our new campaign promotes credible labels that underscore a more sustainable system and will decode phony labels that cloud the marketplace.”

In a campaign partnership with the website TakePart, Consumer Reports is calling on the FDA in a petition to ban “natural” from food product claims. TakePart and Consumer Reports will also be launching a series exploring food labeling concerns called “Know your food, know your labels.”

]]>An additive found in the Pepsi One soft drink that’s considered a carcinogen, is close to breaking California’s Prop 65 rule, Consumer Reports finds in a study released on Thursday.

The artificial caramel color chemical called 4-methylimidazole or 4-MeI, was added to California’s Prop 65 list in 2011. Prop 65 requires food and beverages that contain more than 29 micrograms of 4-MeI a day, to put a health warning label on the product. There is currently no federal limit on the coloring.

According to the Los Angeles Times, Pepsi One, along with Malta Goya come close to breaking the Prop 65 rule. “Twelve ounce cans of Pepsi One, a low-calorie soda, contained as much as 43.5 micrograms of 4-MeI in California tests. Malta Goya, a nonalcoholic malt beverage, reached 352.5 micrograms in California.” The Times notes that by comparison, Coca-Cola samples in California contained 4.3 micrograms and Dr. Pepper contained 10.1.

Consumer reports tested more than 80 cans and bottles of sodas between April and September 2013 in California and New York, with 29 more samples taken in December.

Pepsi was one of the soda manufacturers in 2012 that pledged to reduce the amount of 4-MeI in its drinks because of the carcinogenic risk.

“We are concerned about both the levels of 4-MeI we found in many of the soft drinks tested and the variations observed among brands, especially given the widespread consumption of these types of beverages,” said Urvashi Rangan, a toxicologist and executive director of the Consumer Reports Food Safety and Sustainability Center. “There is no reason why consumers need to be exposed to this avoidable and unnecessary risk that can stem from coloring food and beverages brown.”

Pepsi responded to the report by saying all of the levels of 4-MeI in the products did fall below the California limit.

According to the report released by Consumer Reports magazine, safety tests conducted on 300 store-bought chickens revealed potentially harmful bacteria in nearly every sample.

The report from the Pew Charitable Trusts found the USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service “lacks the authority to properly protect the public,” as two recent salmonella outbreaks demonstrated, reports the Times. “At the core of both findings are calls to strengthen government oversight in the $70-billion poultry industry. Doing so would help reduce incidents of food-borne illness, which sickens 48 million people and kills 3,000 in the U.S every year.”

The Pew report found salmonella oversight to be rampant in poultry inspections, because, writes the Times, “inspectors lack broad powers to shut down problem processors like they can for other serious pathogens such as E. coli 0157:57.”

Earlier this month, the USDA announced plans to enforce stricter testing for salmonella, developing the nation’s first national standards for acceptable levels of contamination in cut chicken parts. “Making chicken safer to eat will require a revamping of the way that it’s raised and processed,” said Consumer Reports.

A spokesperson for the Food Safety and Inspection Service said that the reports “confirm the need for measures already underway at FSIS to prevent food-borne illness.”

A new report released by Consumer Reports finds that most Americans want meat products that are sold in supermarkets to be antibiotic-free. The report, titled "Meat On Drugs: The Overuse of Antibiotics in Food Animals and What Supermarkets and Consumers Can Do to Stop It," cites that 86 percent of those polled think antibiotic-free meat should be sold in major supermarket outlets, and more than one-third of those consumers would pay more money for it.

A new report released by Consumer Reports finds that most Americans want meat products that are sold in supermarkets to be antibiotic-free. The report, titled “Meat On Drugs: The Overuse of Antibiotics in Food Animals and What Supermarkets and Consumers Can Do to Stop It,” cites that 86 percent of those polled think antibiotic-free meat should be sold in major supermarket outlets, and more than one-third of those consumers would pay more money for it. More than 70 percent of those polled also said they were extremely concerned about the effects of antibiotics in their meat—and in the supply chain in general—some 60 percent were concerned about what the use of antibiotics says about the sanitary conditions and health of the animals.

The report found that antibiotic-free meats do not necessarily have to come at an excessively high sticker price either; researchers found antibiotic-free chicken for as little as $1.29 a pound in stores including Trader Joe’s and Publix.

Warnings about label claims were also issued by the agency, suggesting that several claims including “antibiotic-free,” “no antibiotic residues,” and “no antibiotic growth promotants” are not USDA approved and should not be allowed in the market. They also warned against blind faith in the word “natural” to mean free from antibiotics. There are currently no regulations on the use of the term.

Consumer Reports’ public policy and advocacy agency, Consumers Union, has also just launched a campaign to encourage supermarkets to sell meat that’s raised without antibiotics. The first target is Trader Joe’s.

If you’ve ever been confused by the shiny labels decorating the front of every package in the supermarket aisle, you’re not alone. Phrases like “all natural,” “grass fed” and “organic” catch our eye, but without proper research, we may not realize that those words may not actually mean what our eyes are telling our brains and stomachs they mean. Crafty wordplay and loose legislation have allowed words like “natural” to mean “well, kind of real, but with some preservatives and chemical ingredients,” while “free range” could very well translate as “locked up in a warehouse with one door leading to ten feet of grass that I never use.”

If you’ve ever been confused by the shiny labels decorating the front of every package in the supermarket aisle, you’re not alone. Phrases like “all natural,” “grass fed” and “organic” catch our eye, but without proper research, we may not realize that those words may not actually mean what our eyes are telling our brains and stomachs they mean. Crafty wordplay and loose legislation have allowed words like “natural” to mean “well, kind of real, but with some preservatives and chemical ingredients,” while “free range” could very well translate as “locked up in a warehouse with one door leading to ten feet of grass that I never use.”

To help you weed through the greenwashing, Consumer Reports has launched an eco-labels page on its Greener Choices website. You can search and define the claims about not only food, but wood, personal care products and household cleaners. You can even search by certification logo, in case you don’t know what “Fish Wise” means (low contaminant levels, defined by color of label) or if “Certified Humane” seems a little confusing (growth hormones are prohibited; animals are raised on a diet without antibiotics, only used to treat the sick, among other qualifications).

The website also informs you whether the logos and certifications are required by law, or merely something the company is using to draw your attention to its product. For those interested in the history of each particular label, Consumer Reports goes that step further. For example, not only did I not know that “Bird Friendly” denoted shade-grown coffee, but that the program began at the Smithsonian Migratory Bird Center in conjunction with the National Zoo in 1999. So the site doubles as a great research resource to boot.

Most of us won’t go that deep into the pages. Obviously, the best way to eat is knowing your food source personally. If this is impossible, yet we still want to know if the food we’re eating is truly antibiotic free, humanely grown and organic, Greener Choices is the type of initiative that some corporations may disdain, but the rest of us will cherish.